Re: [libvirt] [PATCHv5 1/6] virNodeGetCPUTimeParameters: Expose new API

2011/5/20 Daniel P. Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt;: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 04:01:36PM +0900, Minoru Usui wrote: >> virNodeGetCPUTimeParameters: Expose new API >> >> Signed-off-by: Minoru Usui <usui(a)mxm.nes.nec.co.jp&gt; >> --- >>  include/libvirt/libvirt.h.in |   65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>  src/libvirt_public.syms      |    1 + >>  2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/libvirt/libvirt.h.in b/include/libvirt/libvirt.h.in >> index f4d0b40..723fdf8 100644 >> --- a/include/libvirt/libvirt.h.in >> +++ b/include/libvirt/libvirt.h.in >> @@ -280,6 +280,58 @@ struct _virNodeInfo { >>      unsigned int threads;/* number of threads per core */ >>  }; >> >> +/** >> + * VIR_CPU_TIME_FIELD_LENGTH: >> + * >> + * Macro providing the field length of virNodeCPUTimeParameters >> + */ >> +#define VIR_CPU_TIME_FIELD_LENGTH 80 >> + >> +/** >> + * VIR_CPU_TIME_KERNEL: >> + * >> + * Macro for the cumulative CPU time which spends by kernel, >> + * when the node booting up.(in nanoseconds). >> + */ >> +#define VIR_CPU_TIME_KERNEL "kernel" >> + >> +/** >> + * The cumulative CPU time which spends by user processes, >> + * when the node booting up.(in nanoseconds). >> + */ >> +#define VIR_CPU_TIME_USER "user" >> + >> +/** >> + * The cumulative idle CPU time, >> + * when the node booting up.(in nanoseconds). >> + */ >> +#define VIR_CPU_TIME_IDLE "idle" >> + >> +/** >> + * The cumulative I/O wait CPU time, >> + * when the node booting up.(in nanoseconds). >> + */ >> +#define VIR_CPU_TIME_IOWAIT "iowait" >> + >> +/** >> + * The CPU utilization. >> + * The usage value is in percent and 100% represents all CPUs on >> + * the server. >> + */ >> +#define VIR_CPU_TIME_UTILIZATION "utilization" >> + >> +/** >> + * virCPUTimeParameter: >> + * >> + * a virNodeCPUTimeParameter is a structure filled by virNodeGetCPUTime() >> + * and providing the information for the cpu time of the node. >> + */ >> +typedef struct _virCPUTimeParameter virCPUTimeParameter; >> + >> +struct _virCPUTimeParameter { >> +    char field[VIR_CPU_TIME_FIELD_LENGTH]; >> +    unsigned long long value; >> +}; >> >>  /** >>   * virDomainSchedParameterType: >> @@ -512,6 +564,14 @@ int virDomainMigrateSetMaxSpeed(virDomainPtr domain, >>  typedef virNodeInfo *virNodeInfoPtr; >> >>  /** >> + * virCPUTimeParameterPtr: >> + * >> + * a virCPUTimeParameterPtr is a pointer to a virCPUTimeParameter structure. >> + */ >> + >> +typedef virCPUTimeParameter *virCPUTimeParameterPtr; >> + >> +/** >>   * virConnectFlags >>   * >>   * Flags when opening a connection to a hypervisor >> @@ -645,6 +705,11 @@ int                     virNodeGetInfo          (virConnectPtr conn, >>                                                   virNodeInfoPtr info); >>  char *                  virConnectGetCapabilities (virConnectPtr conn); >> >> +int                     virNodeGetCPUTimeParameters (virConnectPtr conn, >> +                                                 virCPUTimeParameterPtr params, >> +                                                 int *nparams, >> +                                                 unsigned int flags); >> + >>  unsigned long long      virNodeGetFreeMemory    (virConnectPtr conn); >> >>  int                     virNodeGetSecurityModel (virConnectPtr conn, >> diff --git a/src/libvirt_public.syms b/src/libvirt_public.syms >> index 1444b55..fb8d3e0 100644 >> --- a/src/libvirt_public.syms >> +++ b/src/libvirt_public.syms >> @@ -441,6 +441,7 @@ LIBVIRT_0.9.2 { >>          virDomainGetState; >>          virDomainInjectNMI; >>          virDomainScreenshot; >> +        virNodeGetCPUTimeParameters; >>  } LIBVIRT_0.9.0; >> >>  # .... define new API here using predicted next version number .... > > ACK. > > I'm wondering whether virCPUTimeParameter should be dropped and just use > the generic virTypedParameter instead. It would be rather overkill since > we only really want to ever use  'unsigned long long' for this data, > but it might be simpler for apps to have the same struct, even if we only > use one field of it. > > Daniel > Actually virNodeGetCPUTimeParameters is the wrong name. It's not a parameter function, it's a statistics function. Therefore, it should be called virNodeGetCPUTimeStats or virNodeGetCPUStats. Matthias